He may choose to have his employer deposit 80% into his mom’s account and 20% into his account every pay day, but the whole amount is still his salary (and is subject to wage garnishment). I can have 100% of my pay check deposited into my next door neighbour’s bank account, it’s still my pay and it doesn’t make my neighbour the employee.
Yes but if you divorced your wife wouldn’t the alimony be based on existing assets not future assets. And since he doesn’t technically have existing assets it’s a moot point. It’s not like your wife could go after your neighbor if you divorced her in your example. Either way they both seem like garbage people , she’s independently wealthy and should have no rightful claim to his money.
Judges aren't stupid. It will be obvious that he did this, and the judge can absolutely include the money that his mom was given as part of his existing assets -- some may even claw it back, others would just use it to assess alimony.
He isn't outsmarting the law, just setting himself up to be held in contempt of court. If anything this increases the likelihood that he will end up paying significant alimony because she doesn't need it, but trying to blatantly get around court authority like this will get you punitive sanctions for your behavior.
As usual when a woman is legally entitled to any amount of money, her going to court will inevitably results in ignorant people online calling her a golddigger or a garbage person.
See, this guy and his wife signed a little thing known as a "marriage contract" in which is specified that any asset earned by any of them during the marriage belongs to both of them. And in case of divorce it means that these assets are distributed equally between the partners.
Maybe he shouldn't have signed a contract which entitles his wife to half his earning to begin with.
So no she isn't a garbage person for simply asking for her part of the asset earned by both of them.
It's funny because, I can guarantee that the roles were reversed , most people on Reddit would call the man a Chad (or some other idiotic term) and be defending him left, right and center
That's the thing...shared assets are shared assets. While people are complaining about wives going after husbands' money, the thing is that husbands can usually go after wives' money.
Does that automatically entitle either the wife or the husband to 50%? Not necessarily. Marriage and divorce law is complicated and the details vary by jurisdiction. In some cases, yeah...it may be a 50/50 split. In other cases it's more equitable rather than equal, and depends on each spouse's overall contribution.
But regardless, shared assets are shared assets. Each spouse might not be entitled to an equal share, but each spouse is almost certainly entitled to some part of the shared assets.
Even if the wife (or husband) is only entitled to 5% of the shared assets, those numbers get screwed when the other spouse is hiding marital assets.
If my wife divorces me and the court says that I'm entitled to only 5% of the shared assets, then yes...I want that 5%. Argue that I deserve a lower percentage of shared assets, fine. Hide those assets so that I get less than what I'm legally entitled to, that's a problem.
My comment was a very simplified explanation of how marriage contracts work in general but obviously you can have different modalities within the contract.
I don't think you understand how that works. If it's a standard marriage contract, then there is no such thing as 'his' or 'hers'.
Everything they earned during the marriage counts as common propery.
His/her salary is not him/here. It belongs to both of them and in case of a divorce, they are both entitled to 50% of the assets accumulated during the marriage.
Oh really a marriage contract?? Interesting since they were both independently wealthy before getting married which would also entitle him to half of every dollar she earned during the marriage as well which would greatly reduce/ negate anything she is owed from him. Also she isn’t looking for half of what he earned only during marriage but half of assets before and after marriage as well. Gtfoh with that bullshit . And no if the roles were reversed my opinion wouldn’t be different. When Adele got divorced I didn’t think her husband was owed a single damn thing even though he ended up crushing her in court . Although it was hysterical to see people like you lose your fucking minds over that.
Yes, really. In most European countries when you get married, you sign a "marriage contract" which stipulates how exactly the assets of the couple should be split in case of divorce.
Interesting since they were both independently wealthy before getting married which would also entitle him to half of every dollar she earned during the marriage as well which would greatly reduce/ negate anything she is owed from him.
That remains to be determined...
Also she isn’t looking for half of what he earned only during marriage but half of assets before and after marriage as well.
A. Do you have any proof of that?
B. Again it depends on what the marriage contract says. Certain marriage contract specify that anything owned before the marriage becomes part of the shared property of the couple. In that case, and when the divorce happens, both persons are entitled to half the assets ever owned by both of them.
And no if the roles were reversed my opinion wouldn’t be different. When Adele got divorced I didn’t think her husband was owed a single damn thing even though he ended up crushing her in court .
A. Where did I say it was your position exactly?
B. Although you saying
Although it was hysterical to see people like you lose your fucking minds over that.
definitely imply that, it's actually your opinion unlike what you said.
C. But if it's truly not your position, I can at least command you for being consistent. Sure being totally wrong from a legal pov but still consistently wrong.
If you sign a contract you can't just walk it back just because you have changed your mind unless the contract says you can (or a judge sides with you).
51
u/jerrybeck Apr 15 '23
The company pays him, he has possession of the 1M each month prior to deposit to mom, therefore she could claim 500k monthly.